Another joke about office porn may be stale and in bad taste, but we don’t care: L.A. Times reporters may have access to all the NSFW content they want, but the rest of their job leaves something to be desired.

Since David Hiller took over as publisher of the Los Angeles paper 16 months ago, things have been rough out there.

There was the very public departure of Jim O’Shea.

The announcement that the paper will be cutting 50 jobs.

Ad revenue fell 8.5%, lower than the industry average, and the paper has lost major money in classified ads.

No one has any confidence in the new editor, Russ Stanton.

Sam Zell, the newish owner of the Times, pretends to care about great journalism, but is ultimately concerned with the bottom line.

Yesterday, John Montorio, one of two managing editors, announced that he was leaving at the end of the month. Most Times employees see Hiller as “star-struck outsider, a meddler in the newsroom who does not understand journalism or Los Angeles.”

As always, the rumors were true. The new L.A. Times editor (read: next head on the chopping block) is Russ Stanton, who is currently the editor of LATimes.com.

Stanton replaces Jim O'Shea, who you might remember, did not leave quietly.

Stanton will come into power following Sam Zell's motivational porn-at-the office go ahead and his less motivational layoffs at the Tribune Co.

And as long as we're on the topic of changes at the L.A. Times, circulation chief Jack Klunder will become president of the paper.

Some at the Times do not believe Stanton has the stature or experience to take-over the job. But this man collects bobble-heads, just like Dwight Schrute. And we all know how effective Schrute Bucks are.

Full memo after the jump.

CONTINUED »

Let’s say you worked at a paper that had gone through four senior editors in three years and the general state of journalism was like your toilet after a big cup of coffee. And let’s say you lived in Los Angeles. And how about we quit the hypotheticals and say you work for the L.A. Times?

Well, then Jim O’Shea’s departure couldn’t have felt good. Because when he was ousted, he either was supremely bitter or incredibly honest—or maybe a little bit of both—and basically said the whole Times operation was crap. You’re probably interested in another job, but resigned to the fact that finding a new position at a paper on par with the L.A. Times is next to impossible.

But fear not, Sam Zell, owner of the Tribune Co., came in to make everyone feel better by talking smack on O’Shea, saying "[O'Shea] pissed all over the company where he worked for over 30 years.” But lest any reporters would take issue, Zell won them over by encouraging porn watching at work as long as masturbating and sexual harassment didn't get in the way of deadlines.

What a kidder. But seriously, your jobs are not secure.

So while you were enjoying your three day weekend, Jim O’Shea was getting all outraged about getting fired from the L.A. Times over financial disputes, the demise of print journalism, etc.

In the past three years, four senior editors have left the L.A. Times complaining about budget cuts. Effectively, the L.A. Times is that guy who can’t commit that every girl thinks she can change. Rumors have it that the next editor who believes newspapers can change is former business editor Russ Stanton, who currently is the head of editorial content at latimes.com.

CONTINUED »

The current system relies too heavily on voodoo economics and not enough on the creativity and resourcefulness of journalists. … This company, indeed, this industry, must invest more in solid, relevant journalism. We must integrate the speed and agility of the Internet with the news judgment and editorial values of the newsroom, values that are more important than ever as the hunger for news continues to surge and gossip pollutes the information atmosphere. … We need to tell readers more about Barack Obama and less about Britney Spears.

-Former L.A. Times editor Jim O'Shea's departing memo, via L.A. Observed

The majority of the 60 departing LA Times staffers made their exits this week, prompting the paper to took a long, hard look back at the wonderful reporters they've sent "voluntarily" packing. And we find ourselves captivated by the first-person testimonials from the exiting Times' employees, which ran the gamut of emotional and profound ("One of the most memorable roles I've had is being editor of the military obituaries…some reporters say this is the most moving—and most difficult—assignment they have faced ") to the glib and frustrated ("I won't miss the frustration of pulling out the Sports section and realizing it is less than half the size it was only a year or two ago.")

We particularly enjoyed the honesty of (former) national editor, Don Woutat.

CONTINUED »

In an email sent yesterday at 4:14pm, L.A. Times editor Jim O'Shea tacitly informed staffers that 57 members of the editorial department will be either voluntarily—or "involuntarily"—departing. We've pasted his note below, including our thoughtful analysis of O'Shea's smooth transition from "Some highly talented people are leaving the staff and I hate to see them go" to "Fuck it, they were all crap, you 'still-employed' folks are the future."

[Ed: Admittedly, we may have used some artistic license in paraphrasing the latter portion of O'Shea's email missive, but the sentiment remains the same.]

And now, for the morale-boosting announcement! As you can see from the opening lines, O'Shea doesn't waste any time!

Today the Los Angeles Times completed a voluntary and involuntary employee separation program. The vast majority of people leaving the newspaper will depart voluntarily over the next few weeks. The total also included a very small number of involuntary departures. Everyone who will be leaving has been notified. All will receive a generous separation package that includes salary continuation and outplacement assistance.

Analysis: Voluntary, involuntary, what's the big difference? What's important is that we at the L.A. Times are one big family. Until you become lazy and/or expendable, in which case you're suddenly the 'bastard son,' at which point we'll promptly disown you and/or never speak of you again.

More memo/analysis after the jump!

CONTINUED »